Read an Excerpt
Preface to the Paperback Edition On the morning of Charles’s coronation, as I prepared to exer- cise my right to protest on Trafalgar Square, I was arrested along with seven of my colleagues. I hadn’t committed any crime, of course. In fact, I’d been discussing our plans with the police quite amicably for four months. When a detective came to my cell door at around one p.m. that day, I told him what I thought about my unlawful detention. The officer replied, with some sympathy, ‘If it makes you feel any better, you’re on the news all around the world.’ By that time, the book you are holding had already gone to press. My republican colleagues and I were all too aware that the coronation had the potential to be a PR coup for the royals, securing their future for another generation. Charles could have embraced modernity, made peace with his youngest son and stripped his brother of his remaining titles. He could have insisted on a low-key ceremony, one that recognized the huge social and cultural changes that have shaped this country over the previous seventy years. Instead, in the first few months of 2023, as the sight of yellow ‘Not My King’ placards became commonplace at Charles’s public outings, it was increasingly apparent that change was not on the agenda. It was clear Charles had no interest in innovation – what he wanted was a coronation like his mother’s in 1953 – at an esti- mated cost of between £100 million and £250 million. Yet we are no longer in the days of grainy black and white images, broadcast on the only television channel available, images that conjured up a link with a bygone age. Instead, Charles was embracing obscure traditions in the era of high-definition TV and social media. From the peculiar costumes to a baffling reli- gious ceremony, all this was presented to a public who were able to respond instantaneously. And indeed they did, with incredulity, ridicule and disinterest. Here was a very ordinary man from a very ordinary family, one with their hands deep in our pockets during a cost-of- living crisis, demanding the nation doff their collective cap without noticing that we are living in a more democratic age, where deference is rapidly dying out. This stark contrast between the view looking out from the palace, and the world looking in was thrown into sharp relief by the bizarre sugges- tion that those watching the coronation at home could swear a ‘people’s oath’. Truth be told, as awful as it was to be arrested that day – locked up in a police cell for sixteen hours, having never committed a crime – knowing that the world had been told about our arrests did lift my spirits. It was only later that I learned just how widely the story had been reported, and the impact it had on the debate about the monarchy and the right to protest. It’s become increasingly obvious that a lot of people don’t care about the monarchy, but they assume everyone else does, because that’s how it is portrayed in much of the media. Cru- cially, they also believe the monarchy is harmless. Yet on the day of the coronation people saw an institution intolerant of dissent, its acolytes apparently happy to put innocent people behind bars, to defend the police action on the grounds of there being ‘a time and a place’ for protest. The Met police declared the coronation a ‘special day’ on which they would, in the words of Commissioner Mark Rowley, have a ‘low tolerance’ of protest. The footage of arrests and police harassment of pro- testers that poured out from Trafalgar Square and the Mall jarred sharply with the image of a benign, harmless and occa- sionally amusing relic. It wasn’t just the palpable public outrage at the unlawful arrest of peaceful protesters before we had even begun protest- ing. Nor was it the sudden stratospheric boost to Republic’s profile. Although under-reported, throughout 2023 there was a seismic shift in the fortunes of the republican movement, and public attitudes toward the monarchy. 2023 began with scandal – fresh accusations and revelations from Harry’s book Spare. It also ended with scandal – further revelations found in newly released documents from the Epstein trial in Florida. The royals stood accused of racism, bullying and indifference to the difficulties faced by Harry and Meghan. Andrew stood accused of the sexual abuse of under- age girls both in London and on Epstein’s island home. The months between were peppered with tales of royal extrava- gance, tax avoidance and a massive 45 per cent increase of the Sovereign Grant, rising from £86 million to £125 million while people faced crises in housing, schools, the NHS, and even feeding their families. News that Charles, now the Duke of Lancaster, was taking money from the estates of those who died on his land, to spend on the upkeep of his own homes, soured the public’s view of him still further. The polls vary, but the pattern was clear. Four months after the death of the Queen, most people still fell into two camps: the minority who were excited by the coronation (9 per cent according to a YouGov poll published in April 2023), and the majority who simply weren’t interested. Yet most continued to support the retention of the monarchy over abolition, if only because apathy breeds inertia. Yet, by the end of the year, those preferring to keep the monarchy over an elected head of state had fallen below fifty per cent for the first time. The monarchy may now be in serious trouble. A Savanta poll, asking if people preferred a monarch or an elected head of state, put the royals on 57 per cent in May 2023. By November the same question asked by Savanta and YouGov put them on 52 per cent. By January 2024 Savanta had the monarchy down to 48 per cent, while YouGov put them on 45 per cent. By these polls, at least, the monarchy had lost its claim to popular sup- port, and the question of its future was no longer a settled issue. Unlike a political party or a listed company, the royals don’t have the option of refreshing personnel, or reinventing who they are. Charles and Camilla, William and Kate are all they have, and all they will have for years to come. The institution is resistant to serious reform, and anyway, what reform could they countenance that wouldn’t lead to a further erosion of support? Opening up their archives would expose them to fresh scandal; cutting back on spending might give them some respite, but their finances are so out of kilter with modern expectations that it’s hard to imagine them foregoing their luxuries. As for their PR, their armoury is empty. 2023 was the year they threw everything at the task of shoring up their support, from costly parades to fawning documentaries shame- fully broadcast by the BBC. Yet with all that effort spent, their support continued to decline. The monarchy is trapped, in a way. They may feel that expos- ure is how they will win back the support and interest of the public. Yet it appears to have the opposite effect in a more cynical age. Photo opportunities are often derided, involvement with charities often met with charges of hypocrisy or cynical use of good causes for royal PR. The problem is their most syco- phantic cheerleaders demand exposure and seem to think hyperbole is the answer. Yet the more shrill and obsequious the headlines, the more people see royalism as something strange and disconnected from the real world the rest of us live in. At the House of Commons Home Affairs committee two weeks after the coronation, where I was asked to give evidence on the policing of protests, Tim Loughton MP asked me: ‘Can you tell me what you and your organization hoped to achieve on the day of the coronation?’ ‘We wanted to use the opportunity to get our message across,’ I replied, ‘which is that in a democracy we should have an elec- tion instead of a coronation. Instead of being told, “It is going to be Charles”, we ought to have a choice about our head of state. We wanted to be very clear in front of the world’s cam- eras that we are not a nation of royalists.’ The arrests certainly amplified that message, against the backdrop of a monarchy rapidly falling out of favour with the public. A year on and a third of the country now prefer an elected head of state. As many as a quarter ‘don’t know’ which they prefer according to the polls, while the monarchy has lost its claim to popular support. All of which tells us one thing: now is the time to talk about the democratic alternative. After all, if monarchy really is the best system, why would they arrest their critics instead of having an honest, robust and informed debate?
